[Fester Chugabrew]

There are many examples of this. Some are listed here.

Those examples hardly demonstrate the magnitude of speciation necessary to explain the wider diversity of biological entities. Again, one would expect to find at least one or two living examples where a human might be confused for an ape. As far as I know, no such case has ever been documented. It's called absence of evidence.

Discrete taxonomy in speciation is also an issue that has already been well addressed.

I consider arguments from extinction also to be absence of evidence. It's a "maybe," not a "certainly so," and as such qualifies to be taught as some form of archaeological history and philosophy, not science in the strict sense.

And then there's the whole matter of evidence in general. Evolutionists are blythe in announcing the "huge amounts of evidence" to support their view, but science consists of more than mountains of evidence (the interpretation of which is subject to inestimable subjectivity). Testing, direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like must also be involved.

Looking at a static record and attempting to construct history therefrom is no more qualified to be called "science" than preaching the wrath of an Almighty God in a physics class is qualified to be called the proper application of theology. Science and theology are about, and engaged in, dynamic processes, the study of which leaves evolutionism in the dust as far as both truth and value are concerned.

[Quark2005]

Testing, direct observation, repeatability, exploration, and the like must also be involved.

All 4 of these things are done with evolutionary biology, as I have already explained. You just refuse to see it or are unable to understand it. The scientific community, well-trained in these matters, is well aware of the implications and necessity of evidence and draws their conclusions accordingly.

You have already admitted that your religious views trump any scientific explanation in your mind, so I am still inclined to ask about this, as I am curious as to how your draw your conclusions. I'd be satisfied (for now) with an honest attempt at an answer to any of the following, rephrased as direct questions where necessary:

• Many parts of the Bible are written in parables, including many of Jesus' most famous preachings. The Creation story does not anywhere explicitly set itself aside as an exception to this possibility. Why is it not possible that the account in Genesis is a parable containing the message of God's awesome creative power?
• The Bible's original audience had no conception of modern science, so the story was written at a level simple people in a simple time could understand. The message of creation is timeless, but why would you expect a specific account of events to an ancient audience to apply as a restriction to knowledge based on modern scientific inquiry?
• As I pointed out before, many parts of the Bible are not specifically internally consistant. Matthew, Mark and Luke give different accounts of the identity (and genders) of the 3 people to which Peter denied Christ. (You never addressed this point) Matthew and Luke give two very different geneologies of Joseph, the stepfather of Jesus. If the meaning of the Bible is always 100% literal history, how do you reconcile these internal contradictions?
• Some statements in the Bible are completely absurd when taken too literally. Do you really believe that the descendants of Abraham during David's time were literally as numerous as all the grains of sand on the seashore? How many trillions of people would this be?
• Some parts of the Bible seem to even support an evolutionary origin of man:

  Ecclesiastes 3:18

  I also thought, "As for men, God tests them so that they may see that they are like the animals."

  Why is not possible to interpret statements such as this as support of our evolutionary origin, especially when Genesis 1 is phrased in such a non-specific form?

• Most creationists interpret Genesis super-literally, in contrast to scientific knowledge, whereas the Book of Revelation, are interpreted and distorted to a great extent to fit the belief that we are now living in the end times. The meaning of "Babylon", for instance, is commonly reinterpreted to mean the United States or another powerful nation. If Revelation can be interpreted this loosely by fundamentalists, why can't Genesis accomodate scientific knowledge about human evolutionary origins?